I’m not sure the connection between martial arts training/competition and rationalist discussion is all that strong. Also, I’m not sure if this is meant to apply to “casual discussion in most contexts” or “discussion about rationalist topics among people who share a LOT of context and norms”, or “comment threads on LessWrong”.
The primary difference I see is that in martial arts, the goal is generally self-improvement, where in rationalist discussions the goal is finding and agreeing on external truths. Martial arts isn’t about disagreement or misunderstanding of the universe, and the mechanisms for safe improvement aren’t necessarily applicable to other dimensions of improvement.
In fact, I almost never use the phrase “tapping out”, because I don’t like the implications. I use more words, and say “I don’t think I can contribute more, I’m going to [switch topics, go elsewhere, whatever. ]”
I’d love it if tapping out as a safe, no-shame-attached way of leaving a discussion became normal outside of rationalist circles. See footnote 2 as an example. Call that a stretch goal. Primarily, I’m trying to nudge the connotations and etiquette around how rationalists use the concept.
I notice I am confused about how you’re thinking of the goal of martial arts. “Self-improvement” isn’t wrong, but the thing I wanted from it was to go from “get punched”->”flail ineffectually” to “get punched”->”block, hit back, leave.” While I was physically in the dojo, yes, I was trying to improve my capabilities, but there was a less abstract goal in mind.
Sometimes in a discussion with rationalists, I’m trying to figure out the answer to a specific question I have about the world whose answer matters to me. Other times I think the other person is wrong and they think I’m wrong, and we’re trying to figure out what’s true because it would change how we act. Often we’re mostly just talking because conversation is fun, and then it gets less fun because somebody isn’t letting another person gracefully exit or topic switch?
I don’t think you should have to use the exact phrase “tapping out.” Use what works or has the implications you prefer!
I’d love it if tapping out as a safe, no-shame-attached way of leaving a discussion became normal outside of rationalist circles.
It’s still unclear why exactly this is a superior paradigm.
Can you list out the upsides and downsides so that passing readers can have a more complete picture?
Dagon makes a good point about discovering external truths. Which is not valued in martial arts, but highly highly valued elsewhere.
Even one novel discovery on par with gravitation or the Hubble constant or similar would be more than worth embarrassing millions upon millions of online commentators in my view.
Because I want more new ideas and alternate viewpoints, and I believe that can be helped by making experiments less costly. Ctrl+f for “like a skilled musician”
Because I want people to be able to more quickly relinquish incorrect beliefs, and I believe punishing someone for ceasing to argue for a particular position hinders this. Ctrl+f for “rather than hurt themselves trying”
Because I want people to have more chances of being convinced of things, and I believe persisting in arguing with them after they want to leave a conversation burns their patience for a point of view. Ctrl+f for “Once someone is in the frame of mind” and also “you are giving them negative”
Because I want people to be comfortable engaging in discussion, and I believe that can be helped by making it easier to disengage. Ctrl+f for “If they had instead kept me”
If I’m right, then the upsides are that people
offer and hear more lines of argument,
don’t feel like they have to keep arguing for a position even as the evidence moves against them
are happier to hear more arguments from those they disagree with
What are the downsides?
People don’t stay as long talking to those they don’t enjoy talking to. One common reason someone isn’t enjoying a conversation is because they’re losing an argument, so this costs the changing of the minds that happen in say (making the number up but it feels about right) the back quarter of protracted and unpleasant arguments.
Those who feel they put effort into a good argument may feel that effort was wasted when the other person taps out in response. Some effort may genuinely be wasted this way.
Since conversations don’t have as clear a reset as wrestling matches, there will likely be some interminable arguments about whether bringing a topic up again a week later counts as not respecting a tap out. (Or variations on people not doing tap out correctly.)
There’s a limited number of conversational moves people keep in their heads, and this takes up a slot that perhaps could be better spent on something else.
Lists are no doubt not exhaustive; they’re what I have in mind. I’ll admit, I don’t think the downsides outweigh the upsides. For your example of novel discoveries outweighing embarrassing online commentators, I notice I don’t think that’s the tradeoff we’re making? If I picture the reverse (that abandoning a line of argument is more costly and less allowed) I expect intellectuals to do less “hey, I had a weird idea. what if. . .” when their missteps are more socially punished.
The primary goal here isn’t to save online commentators some embarrassment! That’s the method, not the goal! If you think they’re wrong and you’re right then the more embarrassed and ashamed they are the less likely they come back again to keep talking with you, which was your primary method of convincing them you were right, wasn’t it?
For the shy folks that for whatever reason must use their real name, well there are costs and benefits to using real name identifiers.
And in any case almost none of them will ever be so important, or attain a position of such significance, that whether they disengage or engage will move the needle, frankly.
Maybe if hundreds of such folks simultaneously did so en masse, but anything below that will see replacement.
Whether via themselves creating a pseudonym identity after being embarrassed too many times, new folks joining the online commentating sphere, etc.
And for the small fraction that refuse to do that and quit forever, who will not accept a pseudonym, well there simply isn’t a need for that many conversational foils, devils-advocates, agitators, mouth-pieces, prima-donnas, etc...
Even for a LW sized community, a few dozen is probably sufficient to satisfy all relevant interest groups.
So I’m not convinced it’s a big enough problem to be worth changing any paradigms. This applies to all online communities, not just LW, a half-heartedly supported and enforced rule change is usually worse then no change at all.
I’m not sure the connection between martial arts training/competition and rationalist discussion is all that strong. Also, I’m not sure if this is meant to apply to “casual discussion in most contexts” or “discussion about rationalist topics among people who share a LOT of context and norms”, or “comment threads on LessWrong”.
The primary difference I see is that in martial arts, the goal is generally self-improvement, where in rationalist discussions the goal is finding and agreeing on external truths. Martial arts isn’t about disagreement or misunderstanding of the universe, and the mechanisms for safe improvement aren’t necessarily applicable to other dimensions of improvement.
In fact, I almost never use the phrase “tapping out”, because I don’t like the implications. I use more words, and say “I don’t think I can contribute more, I’m going to [switch topics, go elsewhere, whatever. ]”
I’d love it if tapping out as a safe, no-shame-attached way of leaving a discussion became normal outside of rationalist circles. See footnote 2 as an example. Call that a stretch goal. Primarily, I’m trying to nudge the connotations and etiquette around how rationalists use the concept.
I notice I am confused about how you’re thinking of the goal of martial arts. “Self-improvement” isn’t wrong, but the thing I wanted from it was to go from “get punched”->”flail ineffectually” to “get punched”->”block, hit back, leave.” While I was physically in the dojo, yes, I was trying to improve my capabilities, but there was a less abstract goal in mind.
Sometimes in a discussion with rationalists, I’m trying to figure out the answer to a specific question I have about the world whose answer matters to me. Other times I think the other person is wrong and they think I’m wrong, and we’re trying to figure out what’s true because it would change how we act. Often we’re mostly just talking because conversation is fun, and then it gets less fun because somebody isn’t letting another person gracefully exit or topic switch?
I don’t think you should have to use the exact phrase “tapping out.” Use what works or has the implications you prefer!
It’s still unclear why exactly this is a superior paradigm.
Can you list out the upsides and downsides so that passing readers can have a more complete picture?
Dagon makes a good point about discovering external truths. Which is not valued in martial arts, but highly highly valued elsewhere.
Even one novel discovery on par with gravitation or the Hubble constant or similar would be more than worth embarrassing millions upon millions of online commentators in my view.
Because I want more new ideas and alternate viewpoints, and I believe that can be helped by making experiments less costly. Ctrl+f for “like a skilled musician”
Because I want people to be able to more quickly relinquish incorrect beliefs, and I believe punishing someone for ceasing to argue for a particular position hinders this. Ctrl+f for “rather than hurt themselves trying”
Because I want people to have more chances of being convinced of things, and I believe persisting in arguing with them after they want to leave a conversation burns their patience for a point of view. Ctrl+f for “Once someone is in the frame of mind” and also “you are giving them negative”
Because I want people to be comfortable engaging in discussion, and I believe that can be helped by making it easier to disengage. Ctrl+f for “If they had instead kept me”
If I’m right, then the upsides are that people
offer and hear more lines of argument,
don’t feel like they have to keep arguing for a position even as the evidence moves against them
are happier to hear more arguments from those they disagree with
What are the downsides?
People don’t stay as long talking to those they don’t enjoy talking to. One common reason someone isn’t enjoying a conversation is because they’re losing an argument, so this costs the changing of the minds that happen in say (making the number up but it feels about right) the back quarter of protracted and unpleasant arguments.
Those who feel they put effort into a good argument may feel that effort was wasted when the other person taps out in response. Some effort may genuinely be wasted this way.
Since conversations don’t have as clear a reset as wrestling matches, there will likely be some interminable arguments about whether bringing a topic up again a week later counts as not respecting a tap out. (Or variations on people not doing tap out correctly.)
There’s a limited number of conversational moves people keep in their heads, and this takes up a slot that perhaps could be better spent on something else.
Lists are no doubt not exhaustive; they’re what I have in mind. I’ll admit, I don’t think the downsides outweigh the upsides. For your example of novel discoveries outweighing embarrassing online commentators, I notice I don’t think that’s the tradeoff we’re making? If I picture the reverse (that abandoning a line of argument is more costly and less allowed) I expect intellectuals to do less “hey, I had a weird idea. what if. . .” when their missteps are more socially punished.
The primary goal here isn’t to save online commentators some embarrassment! That’s the method, not the goal! If you think they’re wrong and you’re right then the more embarrassed and ashamed they are the less likely they come back again to keep talking with you, which was your primary method of convincing them you were right, wasn’t it?
Meh. I feel like those downsides are not very strong and I can come up with better.
The shy folks can hide behind pseudonyms.
For the shy folks that for whatever reason must use their real name, well there are costs and benefits to using real name identifiers.
And in any case almost none of them will ever be so important, or attain a position of such significance, that whether they disengage or engage will move the needle, frankly.
Maybe if hundreds of such folks simultaneously did so en masse, but anything below that will see replacement.
Whether via themselves creating a pseudonym identity after being embarrassed too many times, new folks joining the online commentating sphere, etc.
And for the small fraction that refuse to do that and quit forever, who will not accept a pseudonym, well there simply isn’t a need for that many conversational foils, devils-advocates, agitators, mouth-pieces, prima-donnas, etc...
Even for a LW sized community, a few dozen is probably sufficient to satisfy all relevant interest groups.
So I’m not convinced it’s a big enough problem to be worth changing any paradigms. This applies to all online communities, not just LW, a half-heartedly supported and enforced rule change is usually worse then no change at all.